package-review September 2008

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
2308 discussions

[Bug 450054] New: Review Request: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450054 Summary: Review Request: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: michel.sylvan(a)gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/libs/liblinebreak.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/libs/liblinebreak-0.9.6-1.fc9.sr… Description: liblinebreak is an implementation of the line breaking algorithm as described in Unicode 5.0.0 Standard Annex 14, Revision 19, available at http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-19.html This package currently only provides a static library, and as such should not be a runtime dependency. ( build dependency of newer versions of fbreader, please review ASAP. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=646642 ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 11

[Bug 457142] New: Review Request: olpc-netutils - OLPC network utilities
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457142 Summary: Review Request: olpc-netutils - OLPC network utilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rnorwood(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/olpc-netutils.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/olpc-netutils-0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: olpc-netutils is a GPL-licensed collection of scripts for logging network status information on OLPC XOs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 9

[Bug 230275] New: Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230275 Summary: Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ingvar(a)linpro.no QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com Spec URL: http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/fedora-extras-commit/varnish.spec SRPM URL: http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/fedora-extras-commit/varnish-1.0.3-3.… Description: Hello. After some work packaging up varnish, I would appriciate a review, so that it can enter Fedora Extras. Varnish is a state-of-the-art, high-performance HTTP accelerator. It is targeted primarily at the FreeBSD 6 and Linux 2.6 platforms, and will take full advantage of the virtual memory system and advanced I/O features offered by these operating systems. Typically, you would use one box running Varnish instead of 12 loadbalanced boxes running Squid. (And yes, that's a live example). Documentation and additional information about Varnish is available on the following web sites: http://www.varnish-cache.org/ Official web site http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/ Developer site and wiki This is my first package for Fedora Extras, so please be gentle. I probably need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

1 24

[Bug 457839] Review Request: rubygem-cobbler - Provides Ruby bindings to interact with a Cobbler server.
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457839 --- Comment #19 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> 2008-09-09 22:19:44 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 456166] New: Review Request: mars-sim - Mars Simulation Project
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456166 Summary: Review Request: mars-sim - Mars Simulation Project Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/mars-sim.spec OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkundrak(a)v3.sk QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/mars-sim-2.84-1.el5.src.rpm SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/mars-sim.spec Description: The Mars Simulation Project is a free software Java project to create a simulation of future human settlement of Mars. The simulation is a multi-agent artificial society set in a detailed virtual world. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 9

[Bug 456165] New: Review Request: jfreechart - Java chart library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456165 Summary: Review Request: jfreechart - Java chart library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/jfreechart.spec OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkundrak(a)v3.sk QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/jfreechart-1.0.10-1.el5.src.rpm SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/jfreechart.spec Description: JFreeChart is a free 100% Java chart library that makes it easy for developers to display professional quality charts in their applications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

1 8

[Bug 457917] Review Request: stress - tool to impose stress on a POSIX-compliant operating system
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457917 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> 2008-09-09 15:08:34 EDT --- Mock build is good. Fix the above, and show me so pre-reviews of others' packages, and I can approve and sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 457917] Review Request: stress - tool to impose stress on a POSIX-compliant operating system
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457917 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> 2008-09-09 14:58:52 EDT --- - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. stress.src:35: W: setup-not-quiet Use the -q option to the %setup macro to avoid useless build output from unpacking the sources. Fix. stress.src: W: summary-not-capitalized tool to impose stress on a POSIX-compliant operating system Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. Fix. stress.src: W: invalid-license GPL The value of the License tag was not recognized. Known values are: "Adobe", "ADSL", "AFL", "AGPLv1", "AGPLv3", "AMPAS BSD", "ARL", "ASL 1.0", "ASL 1.0+", "ASL 1.1", "ASL 1.1+", "ASL 2.0", "ASL 2.0+", "APSL 2.0", "APSL 2.0+", "Artistic 2.0", "Artistic clarified", "BitTorrent", "Boost", "BSD", "BSD with advertising", "CeCILL", "CDDL", "CPAL", "CPL", "Condor", "Copyright only", "Crystal Stacker", "DOC", "ECL 1.0", "ECL 2.0", "eCos", "EFL 2.0", "EFL 2.0+", "EPL", "ERPL", "EU Datagrid", "Fair", "FTL", "Giftware", "GL2PS", "Glide", "gnuplot", "GPL+", "GPL+ or Artistic", "GPLv1", "GPLv2+ or Artistic", "GPLv2", "GPLv2 with exceptions", "GPLv2+", "GPLv2+ with exceptions", "GPLv3", "GPLv3 with exceptions", "GPLv3+", "GPLv3+ with exceptions", "IBM", "IJG", "ImageMagick", "iMatix", "Imlib2", "Intel ACPI", "Interbase", "ISC", "Jabber", "JasPer", "LBNL BSD", "LGPLv2", "LGPLv2 with exceptions", "LGPLv2+", "LGPLv2+ with exceptions", "LGPLv3", "LGPLv3 with exceptions", "LGPLv3+", "LGPLv3+ with exceptions", "libtiff", "LLGPL", "LPL", "LPPL", "mecab-ipadic", "MIT", "MIT with advertising", "Motosoto", "MPLv1.0", "MPLv1.0+", "MPLv1.1", "MPLv1.1+", "NCSA", "NetCDF", "NGPL", "NOSL", "Naumen", "Netscape", "Nokia", "OpenLDAP", "OpenPBS", "OReilly", "OSL 1.0", "OSL 1.0+", "OSL 1.1", "OSL 1.1+", "OSL 2.0", "OSL 2.0+", "OSL 2.1", "OSL 2.1+", "OSL 3.0", "OSL 3.0+", "OpenSSL", "Phorum", "PHP", "Public Domain", "Python", "Qhull", "QPL", "RiceBSD", "RPSL", "Ruby", "SCRIP", "Sendmail", "Sleepycat", "SISSL", "SLIB", "SPL", "TCL", "UCD", "VOSTROM", "Vim", "VNLSL", "VSL", "W3C", "WTFPL", "wxWidgets", "Xerox", "xinetd", "YPLv1.1", "Zend", "ZPLv1.0", "ZPLv1.0+", "ZPLv2.0", "ZPLv2.0+", "ZPLv2.1", "ZPLv2.1+", "zlib", "zlib with acknowledgement", "CDL", "FBSDDL", "GFDL", "IEEE", "OFSFDL", "Open Publication", "Public Use", "CC-BY", "CC-BY- SA", "CC-BY-ND", "DSL", "EFML", "Free Art", "Arphic", "Baekmuk", "Bitstream Vera", "Liberation", "Lucida", "mplus", "OFL", "STIX", "Utopia", "XANO", "Redistributable, no modification permitted", "Freely redistributable without restriction". According to the source, this should be GPLv2+. stress.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/stress-0.18.8/NEWS The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. stress.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/stress-0.18.8/AUTHORS The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. stress.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/stress-0.18.8/README The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. Fix these. You can chmod in %setup. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines . - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. Good. - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. Good. - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. Good. - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. Good. - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). Good. - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . Drop the conditional BRs for the various releases and just specify glibc-headers. - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines . Good. - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) Good. - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. Good. - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. NA. - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NA. - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). NA. - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. NA. - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} NA. - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. NA. - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines . If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. NA. - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. NA. - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. Good. - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Good. Working on a mock build, which will test BuildRequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 457917] Review Request: stress - tool to impose stress on a POSIX-compliant operating system
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457917 Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |limb(a)jcomserv.net AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |limb(a)jcomserv.net --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> 2008-09-09 14:48:08 EDT --- I am a sponsor, and am willing to sponsor you if all goes well. While I'm looking at this, can you provide links to some pre-reviews you've done, and if you've not done any yet, I suggest doing a few, and post links here. Initial review to follow. . . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 226202] New: Merge Review: nspr
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226202 Summary: Merge Review: nspr Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com CC: kengert(a)redhat.com Fedora Merge Review: nspr http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/nspr/ Initial Owner: kengert(a)redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

1 6

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review September 2008